Blood donations

Ten of Swords

The permanent ban on men who have sex with men has now been lifted as of last Monday. This has been replaced by a 12 month deferral period since the most recent sexual contact with another man. There is no deferral period for women who have sex with women.

I wonder is there anyone here who would/will be eligible to donate blood now or in the near future and if you'd be willing to do so? Personally I think the 12 month deferral has simply replaced an explicit ban with an effective ban and this will still result in many gay men being excluded permanently. My own circumstances mean I am ineligible for the foreseeable future.


Here is a really old thread that's been bumped a few times over the years!

louloumc89

It's actually a lad I know from Limerick who's been fighting this case and had this overturned. The ban is a joke, if they are genuinely concerned about infected blood there should be a 4 month ban on all people who've had sex. The fact is, gay men are being discriminated against on a legacy rule and it's a joke. I do admire Tom for his work on this, and as far as I know, he will keep pursing the issue on the behalf of all gay men. I'd say, if you're feeling it, get some free legal advice and submit your own appeal too, the more people the better!

Rob G

Firstly, full disclosure, I'm a straight man with a trans daughter. I'm not a phobe and I support equality.

I think the question really is whether gay men are more likely to have HIV, Hep B or whatever than straight people and lesbian women.

If not, then the ban is wrong and should be lifted.

If they are at an increased risk, then I'd say the ban is justified for public health reasons, and for the sake of political correctness we shouldn't put people who need a transfusion at increased risk. People who have lived in the UK for example are permanently banned because of the (possibly theoretical) increased risk of vCJD, but that isn't considered Anti-Brit, people who have recovered from cancer are permanently banned incase they still have malignant cells and they give the recipient cancer, which isn't anti-cancer-patient.

If gay people aren't at an increased risk now and the ban dates from the 80s AIDS epidemic when they were, then yes, by all means fight it, but if it is based on current science then I think it is fair.

newacc2015

Rob G wrote: »

I think the question really is whether gay men are more likely to have HIV, Hep B or whatever than straight people and lesbian women.

If they are at an increased risk, then I'd say the ban is justified for public health reasons, and for the sake of political correctness we shouldn't put people who need a transfusion at increased risk. People who have lived in the UK for example are permanently banned because of the (possibly theoretical) increased risk of vCJD, but that isn't considered Anti-Brit, people who have recovered from cancer are permanently banned incase they still have malignant cells and they give the recipient cancer, which isn't anti-cancer-patient.

Gay men are more likely to have HIV. But there are nationalities in Ireland, whose HIV rates are multiples of that of gay men. We don't hand out lifetime bans as those nationalities have higher HIV rates than the general public, but we do it for gay men.

The ban started when we could not test for HIV in the blood products. In 2017, we can and we can test very effectively. Using NAT testing you can tell if someone is HIV positive within days of an 'incident' and the general window period is about 2 weeks. We ban people who lived in the UK as we can't test for vCJD easily. Whereas HIV is a simple blood test.

The 12 month deferral period is excessive

Ten of Swords

louloumc89 wrote: »

I do admire Tom for his work on this, and as far as I know, he will keep pursing the issue on the behalf of all gay men.

I respect him for pursuing this issue and for raising awareness over the last few years but the media recently reported that he had dropped his case once the ban was lifted.

Irish Times, Jan 17th

Annasopra

Ten of Swords wrote: »

I respect him for pursuing this issue and for raising awareness over the last few years but the media recently reported that he had dropped his case once the ban was lifted.

Irish Times, Jan 17th

I think he dropped the case but is going to continue highlighting the 1 year deferral period.

louloumc89

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I think he dropped the case but is going to continue highlighting the 1 year deferral period.

It's a small win, but yes he is absolutely still fighting this one year ban.

Also regarding risk, while gay man (and certain nationalities) have higher percentage of people with HIV, it is not a high risk for donations. Also other countries who've dropped the ban, with same HIV population, have not had any issues, it's proven to be 100% safe. They detect within a few days. This can be up to 4 months in some people, but realistically, it's a tiny tiny percentage and there's many more groups you could discriminate against, this legacy ban needs to stop. One year is a joke.

Annasopra

louloumc89 wrote: »

It's a small win, but yes he is absolutely still fighting this one year ban.

Also regarding risk, while gay man (and certain nationalities) have higher percentage of people with HIV, it is not a high risk for donations. Also other countries who've dropped the ban, with same HIV population, have not had any issues, it's proven to be 100% safe. They detect within a few days. This can be up to 4 months in some people, but realistically, it's a tiny tiny percentage and there's many more groups you could discriminate against, this legacy ban needs to stop. One year is a joke.

What countries have fully dropped the ban?

Ten of Swords

As far as I am aware these are the only countries in Europe that have no MSM deferral period,

Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal and Spain

This does not mean that they accept any and all blood regardless of safety. You are still required to undergo a comprehensive health questionnaire and your blood is still extensively tested. The authorities can still refuse to accept blood, or order a deferral, if you have had a risky sexual encounter recently. Basically the decision to ban/defer is not simply automatic if one admits to sex with another man, someone has to make that determination - that is the difference.

BlinkingLights

I don't get the point of the 12 month of no sex deferral. That doesn't mean someone is disease-free and it also excludes guys who might be in sexually active in very low / no risk long term monogamous relationships e.g. married (there are plenty of gay guys who are in very stable and sensible relationships).

Also, it's just expecting people to make an accurate declaration of their sexual and other medical risk history.

Testing thoroughly seems like the only way.

newacc2015

BlinkingLights wrote: »

I don't get the point of the 12 month of no sex deferral. That doesn't mean someone is disease-free and it also excludes guys who might be in sexually active in very low / no risk long term monogamous relationships e.g. married (there are plenty of gay guys who are in very stable and sensible relationships).

Testing thoroughly seems like the only way.

HIV tests are generally conclusive at 4 weeks. 12 deferral will be 100% accurate for HIV.

Studies show you are far more likely to get HIV from a regular partner, than a one night stand. So being in stable relationship means little. People cheat

Blood is thoroughly tested and excessively.

BlinkingLights

Well, if you've a cheating husband, there's a huge risk for straight or gay couples.

Who is to say that a married straight woman's husband doesn't have a double life picking up prostitutes or is having sneaky hook ups with random strangers of either gender ?

I'd like to see some of these studies, particularly now that we have moved into an era where gay relationships have become open, above board and have the possibility of marriage.

My suspicion is that most of this data is coming from an era of clandestine encounters and hidden lives and that gay male relationships are becoming a lot for conventional. I know most of the gay couples I know in their 30s and 40s seem to be extremely monogamous and very safe.

newacc2015

BlinkingLights wrote: »

Well, if you've a cheating husband, there's a huge risk for straight or gay couples.

I'd like to see some of these studies, particularly now that we have moved into an era where gay relationships have become open, above board and have the possibility of marriage.

My suspicion is that most of this data is coming from an era of clandestine encounters and hidden lives and that gay male relationships are becoming a lot for conventional. I know most of the gay couples I know in their 30s and 40s seem to be extremely monogamous and very safe.

http://www.aidsmap.com/Amsterdams-young-gay-men-getting-HIV-from-steady-partners/page/1415748/

There is plenty of other studies on it. Go to an STI clinic in Dublin and ask how many of their patients caught HIV in a stable relationship. They will tell you a lot more than you would think.

BlinkingLights

Those are still looking at very promiscuous, open relationships though.
Having a "main partner" and sleeping around isn't really what I'm talking about.